1
Lab Report #2: Be a Juror
Felix Landaeta, Alexandra Pace, Keira Whitehurst, Bella Winsett
Department of Psychology, University of North Alabama
PY 385-01: Cognitive Psychology
Dr. Christopher Klein
October 29th, 2025
2
Results
Average guilt ratings were calculated by condition (no eyewitness, unrefuted
eyewitness, and discredited eyewitness) and this is shown in Figure 1. Using a single
factor ANOVA, we found that there was a significant effect of eyewitness condition on
ratings of guilt. F(2,29) = 0.539, p = 0.5. In looking at the pattern of means for the
different eyewitness condition data, we see that the discredited eyewitness’ conditions
had the lowest ratings of guilt; followed by the next highest ratings of guilt in the
unrefuted eyewitness’ conditions, and the highest ratings of guilt came from the count of
no eyewitness’ condition.
Figure 1
Exanimating Ratings of Guilt by Eyewitness Condition
Note: Guilt ratings were significantly different among eyewitness conditions.
3
Discussion
When studying the research, we see the results as more biased. We questioned, will
everyone have similar or close results? What made these results really similar or vastly
different? How long did it take for the participants to answer the question given to them?
For our hypothesis, we asked: While answering the question, does this research fit with
the actual role of a juror and are the participants answering the question as if they were
really a juror or as pure guessing? Looking at the data, we see that the average time
taken to answer a question is 3-5 minutes. Overall, the majority of the participants
believe that the suspect in question is guilty. If said participants were to take on the role
of a juror, they could’ve taken more time to think on the suspects actions and think more
on whether or not they are guilty. This also may bring the participants to not guess, or
be biased, as they’re dealing with a real situation. In the article by Springer and Lalasz
(2012), it shows that death-qualified juries are more conviction-prone because the jury
selection process creates a conflict between the jurors’ attitudes and the legal principle
that the defendant is presumed innocent. This causes the jurors to act in a way that
convicts the defendant to reduce their discomfort, rather than questioning the
assumption of innocence itself. This causes death-qualified juries to be more likely to
convict and be more predisposed to convict than those who are excluded for opposing
the death penalty. This can cause the participants to think more on who they are
convicting rather than applying their answer that first comes up in their hand. Another
article by Thompson and Pozzulo (2024), goes into detail how delayed reporting can
influence mock-jurors’ judgement in a sexual assault trial, which can impact perceptions
of the victim’s credibility. A shorter delay can lead to more favorable perceptions of the
victim and higher guilt ratings for the defendant. Though a longer delay can be
perceived negatively, such as fear of family discovery. As an example, mock-jurors tend
to view victims who report quickly more favorably and are more likely to find the
defendant guilty. However, the longer delays (e.g., 10 to 20 years) can lead to lower
guilt ratings for the defendant and less favorable perceptions of the victim. Reasonings
for delay influences mock-jurors can be a fear of family discovering the assault, fear of
the perpetrator can lead to more favorable perceptions of the victim, or even a greater
likelihood of a guilty verdict compared to a delay with no stated reason. Comparing
these two works to the previous research, it’s shown how a lot of thought and
processing there is on being a juror, and that even taking shorter and longer amounts of
time on the report in hand can make a huge difference. When dealing with the strengths
and limitations, we are limited to only a few arguments given to us with what happened
in the crime and only a brief summary. Although this is only a hypothetical situation, if it
were real, the participants are immediately required to memorize what they read based
4
on eyewitnesses' words and are dealt with a big decision based on the information at
hand. While we don’t really know whether or not the participants answered truthfully or
not, the results showed some answering the question in under a minute. Decisionmaking in a real-world situation should take more than just a minute and have a more
thorough result where there's zero bias and a being made as a last-minute decision.
5
References
Thompson E., Lauren (2024) How Length of and Reason for Delayed Reporting
Influence Mock-Jurors’ Judgements in a Sexual Assault Trial Journal of Police &
Criminal Psychology. Retrieved from University of North Alabama Collier Library and
Information Services website: https://research-ebscocom.ezproxy.una.edu/c/k2p5an/search/details/oqdraqinan?limiters=RV%3AY&q=cognitive%20p
sychology%20be%20a%20juror&searchMode=all
Springer, Victoria (2012) Death-qualified jurors and the assumption of innocence: A
cognitive dissonance perspective on conviction-prone verdicts The Social Science
Journal. Retrieved from University of North Alabama Collier Library and Information Services
website: https://research-ebscocom.ezproxy.una.edu/c/k2p5an/search/details/3ql72tl42v?limiters=RV%3AY&q=cognitive%20ps
ychology%20be%20a%20juror&searchMode=all